guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Hyperion`
Hehe, I named your 'sin :p — Skuld 14:16, 5 December 2006 (CST) :Haha, yep, great build by the way, but I'm such an idiot xD. Like to think I'm not that much of nubby name thief now :P -- Hyperion` 14:19, 5 December 2006 (CST) Merger of Build:R/P Envious Barrage, Build:R/P Envious Barrage Ranger and Build:R/P Commanding Barrager. I've proposed the above and thought it may interest you. --JP 08:59, 9 December 2006 (CST) :Cheers for that, I definitely agree they should be merged. In essence they're all the exact same build with a few skills changed. We can merge them into one and just have a larger variant section or something, because loads of skills can be jumbled about in these builds, the only main ones being Barrage, Anthem of Envy and "Go for the Eyes!". An obvious choice for an R/P really and I think apart from those skills the rest are just user preference. -- Hyperion` 09:14, 9 December 2006 (CST) Build:W/E_Obsidian_Tank quote from rate-a-build: "Please do not vote on a build until you have actually tested it." while i am grateful for input into the build, it would be preferred if you did not vote on the build until you actually tested it. a better place for your comments would be under the discussion area, and i would appreciate if you would move your comments into that area. also, i have updated the wording of the introduction to make the build's purpose more clear. thank you. — 10:39, 15 January 2007 (CST) :To clarify, you are not required to comment nor test it. — Skuld 10:41, 15 January 2007 (CST) ::i could understand why there is not a strict requirement on testing a build before voting on it, but the comments made in his vote make it obvious that he did not understand the purpose of the build- the fact that it is very niche and designed for strictly high level areas like DoA and SF. it probably was a little over the top to ask him to move it (as i guess i can rebut his comment within the voting structure), but i stand by my observation that his comments would have been better suited to the discussion section. — 10:53, 15 January 2007 (CST) :::Trust me, I understand the build perfectly having played a Tank for most of my GW career. It's designed to soak up damage while the rest of the team bash up your enemies. Warriors can tank anyway without having a build dedicated to defence because of their high armour rating (although they should generally carry some sort of self heal or defensive skill) and if aggro is rounded up properly it does not take much for a monk to heal the tank. It's much more helpful to your team to throw in some good damage. Take a look at Build:W/any Flailing Dragon. Now that's a PvE warrior. Great damage and able to tank proficiently due to a nice self-heal and condition removal. I stand by my Unfavoured vote and my reasons for it although I didn't actually test it. -- Hyperion` 11:13, 15 January 2007 (CST) ::::you may understand the build's purpose, but i doubt you understand its application. its obvious that it would be useless in any area of the game besides DoA or SF, but its also obvious that you have never tried to tank in DoA or even looked for a group there. the standard build for every non-ebony citadel area of DoA is 3 SF nukers, 1 healers boon monk, 1 SB prot monk, 1 bond monk, 1 bip necro, and 1 obsidian tank. good luck tanking DoA with that flailing dragon build, or even getting a party that will take you with that bar. — 11:57, 15 January 2007 (CST) :::::Ah ok, at last you have made it fully clear. I have never been to DoA so I wouldn't know. I still think it's pointless and unnecessary for SF, but seems DoA is harder, therefore it may be of some use there. Not a build to be used in many other places though imo. I apologise and will withdraw my unfavoured vote. -- Hyperion` 12:49, 15 January 2007 (CST) ::::::np, and i agree that it is somewhat useless for SF, but that doesnt stop it from being used. it was a lot more popular there before the bundle aggro nerf. ive also reworded the intro further to make it's application more clear. — 13:12, 15 January 2007 (CST) credits If you're going to make credits, don't I get mentioned for making one of your userboxes? Lord of all tyria 14:13, 26 January 2007 (CST) :Oh yeah sorry man, you made the wikicode one yeah? I got that off of Sigm@'s page so I didn't know it was yours. Will add you now. :) -- [[User:Hyperion`|'Hyperion`']] 19px (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2007 (CST) ::Woot for being credited with something. That's probably my most worthwhile contribution to the wiki :P Lord of all tyria 14:44, 26 January 2007 (CST)